• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

No, what I posted is a valid syllogism. What you posted is an invalid syllogism.
Both terms contained in my conclusion are contained in the premises.
Your conclusion contains a term that does not appear in the premises, namely, "God did not create tomatoes."

But gfm and I are delighted you enrolled in this class.
Namaste

Logic is not your strong suit is it?
Do you know why your "argument" is worthless?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Logic is not your strong suit is it?
Do you know why your "argument" is worthless?
Be careful, Q. You're not in "Beliefs and Skepticism." In "Philosophy" you have to know what you're talking about.
I've told you why your syllogism is invalid: your conclusion contains a term that does not appear in the premises.
Learn or leave off.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Be careful, Q. You're not in "Beliefs and Skepticism." In "Philosophy" you have to know what you're talking about.
I've told you why your syllogism is invalid: your conclusion contains a term that does not appear in the premises.
Learn or leave off.

Philosophy is not your strong suit but then neither is logic
Do you know why your "argument" is worthless?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Philosophy is not your strong suit but then neither is logic
Do you know why your "argument" is worthless?
I know why your syllogism is invalid and I've pointed this out to you twice. If your only interest in this thread is trolling, you've picked on the wrong instructor.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Does this conditional argument pass muster?

If God created life on earth, then "there is a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow."
If "there is a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow," then life on earth is sacred.___
Therefore, if God created life on earth, then life on earth is sacred.

the argument is valid but not sound...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

the argument is valid but not sound...

The "argument" is worthless but Angel doesn't have any clue why
Angel doesn't do logic
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The "argument" is worthless but Angel doesn't have any clue why
Angel doesn't do logic

He's likes magic... you can't argue with magic.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

He's likes magic... you can't argue with magic.

You also cant argue with someone who fails to comprehend why his "arguments" are worthless but thinks they have "proved" whatever nonsense they are going on about.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You also cant argue with someone who fails to comprehend why his "arguments" are worthless but thinks they have "proved" whatever nonsense they are going on about.

Why would you want too, he is espousing truth as a matter of faith... and peoples faith is a matter of subjective experience not objective truth... i think those two things are by nature antithetical.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Why would you want too, he is espousing truth as a matter of faith... and peoples faith is a matter of subjective experience not objective truth... i think those two things are by nature antithetical.

He thinks his subjective experience is objective truth

He is wrong
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

He thinks his subjective experience is objective truth

He is wrong

yes, definitely in my opinion.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

If God created life on earth then aliens were created by the devil
If the devil created aliens then tomatoes are aliens
Therefore if God created life on earth God did not create tomatoes.

Not even close, Quag...

First off, you are violating the law of identity (A=A) when you claim "tomatoes are aliens". It is logically impossible for tomatoes to be aliens and vice versa.

Second off, your argument structure is invalid:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, If A, D.

In other words, your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premises, and it is invalid syllogism because you introduce a fourth term (D) that is not contained in either of your premises...

You'd have to change it to:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, if A, C.

Your example would thus be:
If God created life on earth, then the devil created aliens.
If the devil created aliens, then tomatoes are aliens.
Therefore, if God created life on earth, tomatoes are aliens.


Here, even with this change, your argument still logically fails because it is violating the law of identity.

Angel's hypothetical syllogism, on the other hand, is completely valid and has the three required terms for syllogism:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, If A, C.


I give you a resounding F on this lesson, Quag. Study up, see to it, and you might even get an A one day. ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Logic is not your strong suit is it?
Inversion fallacy.

Do you know why your "argument" is worthless?
It's not worthless; it is logically valid reasoning.

Your example, on the other hand, WAS worthless because it was logically invalid in multiple ways.

See to it, Quag.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Not even close, Quag...

First off, you are violating the law of identity (A=A) when you claim "tomatoes are aliens". It is logically impossible for tomatoes to be aliens and vice versa.
Why?

Second off, your argument structure is invalid:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, If A, D.


In other words, your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premises, and it is invalid syllogism because you introduce a fourth term (D) that is not contained in either of your premises...

You'd have to change it to:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, if A, C.

Your example would thus be:
If God created life on earth, then the devil created aliens.
If the devil created aliens, then tomatoes are aliens.
Therefore, if God created life on earth, tomatoes are aliens.


Here, even with this change, your argument still logically fails because it is violating the law of identity.
Umm no but lets use the 2nd one if it makes you happy please explain why you think the law of identity has been violated?

Angel's hypothetical syllogism, on the other hand, is completely valid and has the three required terms for syllogism:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, If A, C.


I give you a resounding F on this lesson, Quag. Study up, see to it, and you might even get an A one day. ;)

Angels "argument" is worthless do you know why? Angel doesn't
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Inversion fallacy.


It's not worthless; it is logically valid reasoning.

Your example, on the other hand, WAS worthless because it was logically invalid in multiple ways.

See to it, Quag.

So you dont know why it is worthless?
Look at my argument use your version if you like. THINK HARD!!!!!!
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

A tomato can't be an alien because an object can't have two identities. It may have multiple characteristics, but those characteristics make up a singular identity.

Umm no but lets use the 2nd one if it makes you happy please explain why you think the law of identity has been violated?
See above.

Angels "argument" is worthless do you know why? Angel doesn't
Why do you assert that it is "worthless"? Otherwise, I will dismiss this particular claim as an Argument of the Stone fallacy since I have explained in another post why it is not worthless.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

A tomato can't be an alien because an object can't have two identities. It may have multiple characteristics, but those characteristics make up a singular identity.
Never claimed it had two identities. Why cant a tomato be alien?


See above.

See above
Why do you assert that it is "worthless"? Otherwise, I will dismiss this particular claim as an Argument of the Stone fallacy since I have explained in another post why it is not worthless.

It is worthless because as an argument it doesn't advance the claim Angel is trying to make in the slightest.
Do you know why?

Angel doenst
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

So you dont know why it is worthless?
Argument of the Stone fallacy... Angel's argument is not worthless because it is logically valid. Your argument was worthless because it was logically invalid.

Look at my argument use your version if you like. THINK HARD!!!!!!
Why is Angel's argument "worthless"?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Never claimed it had two identities. Why cant a tomato be alien?




See above


It is worthless because as an argument it doesn't advance the claim Angel is trying to make in the slightest.
Do you know why?

Angel doenst

Angel is not playing with a full deck... it's painfully obvious from the hilarious way he has continued to bastardize the indian greeting of "namaste"
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Never claimed it had two identities. Why cant a tomato be alien?
Quag, a tomato is referring to a separate identity and an alien is referring to another separate identity. Tomato = "Identity A" and Alien = "Identity B". Sure, one could assign the word tomato to refer to "Identity B", just as the word alien refers to "Identity B", but if doing so, then one must completely give up the "Identity A" assignment and reference of tomato. You, in your example, are ultimately equating "Identity A" with "Identity B" (In other words, A=B), and the law of identity (A=A) doesn't allow for that.

Your meaning of "tomato" in your conclusion (you use it as "Identity A in your conclusion) is not the same meaning that you establish for it in your "tomatoes are aliens" assertion (you use it as "Identity B" there). So, beyond your argument not adhering to the law of identity, it also fallaciously equivocates the word tomato...


See above
See above.

It is worthless because as an argument it doesn't advance the claim Angel is trying to make in the slightest.
Do you know why?

Angel doenst
It doesn't need to "advance the claim" to be valid.

But it does establish that, if A is true, C is definitely true.
 
Last edited:
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Never claimed it had two identities. Why cant a tomato be alien?
Quag, a tomato is referring to a separate identity and an alien is referring to another separate identity. Tomato = "Identity A" and Alien = "Identity B". Sure, one could assign the word tomato to refer to "Identity B", just as the word alien refers to "Identity B", but if doing so, then one must completely give up the "Identity A" assignment and reference of tomato. You, in your example, are ultimately equating "Identity A" with "Identity B" (In other words, A=B), and the law of identity (A=A) doesn't allow for that.

Your meaning of "tomato" in your conclusion (you use it as "Identity A in your conclusion) is not the same meaning that you establish for it in your "tomatoes are aliens" assertion (you use it as "Identity B" there). So, beyond your argument not adhering to the law of identity, it also fallaciously equivocates the word tomato...

And to further explain what I am asserting, let me also say this...

What you are doing here is using "tomato" as another word for "alien", which in and of itself is fine. For example, you might use the word "soda" and I might use the word "pop" instead. HOWEVER, we are both referring to the same object (the same identity) because both of those words have been assigned to describe the same exact identity.

In your example, you are fallaciously attempting to use the word tomato to simultaneously describe two different identities...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And to further explain what I am asserting, let me also say this...

What you are doing here is using "tomato" as another word for "alien", which in and of itself is fine. For example, you might use the word "soda" and I might use the word "pop" instead. HOWEVER, we are both referring to the same object (the same identity) because both of those words have been assigned to describe the same exact identity.

In your example, you are fallaciously attempting to use the word tomato to simultaneously describe two different identities...

No he is messing with your for his own amusement... you may have a good understanding of logic but seem to have skipped the class on reason.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And to further explain what I am asserting, let me also say this...

What you are doing here is using "tomato" as another word for "alien", which in and of itself is fine. For example, you might use the word "soda" and I might use the word "pop" instead. HOWEVER, we are both referring to the same object (the same identity) because both of those words have been assigned to describe the same exact identity.

In your example, you are fallaciously attempting to use the word tomato to simultaneously describe two different identities...

Only I am not doing that.
Exactly what are these two different identities you pretend I am using for tomato?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

No he is messing with your for his own amusement... you may have a good understanding of logic but seem to have skipped the class on reason.
It isn't just for amusement it is using the absurd to explain why Angels "argument" is worthless.
 
Back
Top Bottom